Comparison of nicarbazin absorption in chickens, mallards, and Canada geese

Yoder, Christi A.; Miller, Lowell A.; Bynum, Kimberly S.

doi:10.1093/ps/84.9.1491

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the different strain of pigeons used: domestic (homing) versus feral) should certainly be taken into consideration, but it should be noted that recent tests indicate the need of a much higher dose (5000 ppm) in order to obtain a reduction of ∼60% in egg hatchability in pigeons (Yoder et al 2006a). These results suggest that, as recorded for mallard and geese (Yoder et al 2005), the degree of uptake of nicarbazin in pigeons is much lower than that recorded for chickens, thus giving further support to our experimental evidence.…”

Section: Experimental Trialssupporting

confidence: 88%

On the use of pharmacological sterilisation to control feral pigeon populations

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of chemosterilisation for controlling feral pigeon populations was investigated by: (1) quantifying the reproductive activity of pigeons in two Italian cities; (2) testing the efficacy of nicarbazin, an anticoccidial drug with rapid and reversible effects on the reproduction of laying hens, on groups of paired pigeons maintained in open aviaries; and (3) simulating the effects of the use of nicarbazin on a hypothetical population, allowing for the reproductive productivity recorded in (1) and the efficacy of this drug as obtained in (2). Breeding attempts were recorded all year round in both study sites with a minimum peak in September-October, a maximum in March-July, but with active nests in winter too. In terms of the sterility activity of the drug, the results showed only a partial inhibition of reproduction of pigeons fed ∼38-82 mg nicarbazin day −1 (kg bodyweight) −1 (500 and 800 ppm in feed), which, according to the simulations, would produce only a fleeting reduction of their abundance in the field. Data do not seem to support the use of this drug as an effective control method for feral pigeons, and they cast doubts on the opportunity to make use of chemosterilants, which produce only partial and reversible effects. The use of this drug could perhaps be considered only as part of an integrated pest-management program, which necessarily has to include the reduction of carrying capacity of the urban environment.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Trialssupporting

confidence: 88%

On the use of pharmacological sterilisation to control feral pigeon populations

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bursi et al, 2001), no well controlled data on the long-term effects of these chemosterilants are available. More generally, as the effects are only partial (a maximum of 59% reduction of productivity under controlled conditions; Avery et al, 2008) and temporary (Yoder et al, 2005), drugs such as nicarbazin are likely to produce only short lasting reductions of pigeon abundance in the field, with a rapid recovery as soon as the treatment is stopped (Giunchi et al, 2007a).…”

Section: Decrease Of Reproductive Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feral Pigeons: Problems, Dynamics and Control Methods

Giunchi¹,

Albores‐Barajas²,

Baldaccini³

et al. 2012

Integrated Pest Management and Pest Control - Current and Future Tactics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Of these, nicarbazin (OvoControl-G -EPA registration no. 80224-5 and OvoControl-P), is the only active that confers any targeting as it affects only egg layers (Fagerstone 2002;Yoder et al 2005Yoder et al , 2006. Although effective, their mode of action and pharmacology is dependent on repeated intake of active doses before or during the breeding season (Miller and Fagerstone 2000;Yoder 2000;Fagerstone et al 2008).…”

Section: Contraceptionsynthetic Chemistrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Delivering and registering species-tailored oral antifertility products: a review

Humphrys¹,

Lapidge²

2008

Wildl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technologies that induce infertility in wildlife are advancing rapidly. This is due largely to our increasing understanding of reproductive physiology, as well as the demand for management techniques that reduce fertility rather than increase mortality. However, transferring wildlife fertility control from the laboratory into landscape-scale utility for free-ranging animal populations will be highly dependent on products possessing oral activity and cost-effectiveness. A significant challenge to the delivery process is providing the international regulators in each jurisdiction with the most relevant data packages they need to assess new products. An essential part of any product registration for free-ranging animals will be the development of species-tailored delivery systems, especially so for non-specific antifertility actives. This review examines the current range of orally deliverable antifertility options, broadly classifies them according to overall risk compared with alternative vertebrate pesticides, outlines a species-tailoring process that reduces identified risks, and encompasses the data requirements for their registration for sale in Australasia, the USA and Europe.

show abstract

Comparison of nicarbazin absorption in chickens, mallards, and Canada geese

Cited by 21 publications

References 10 publications

On the use of pharmacological sterilisation to control feral pigeon populations

On the use of pharmacological sterilisation to control feral pigeon populations

Feral Pigeons: Problems, Dynamics and Control Methods

Delivering and registering species-tailored oral antifertility products: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About